Kerry voted for the war...

[busymom]

Sure, he regrets it, but he did. So I say we all do unto him that we did unto HRC and kick him out of his seat. That IS the big issue, right...and apologies won't bring back lives. Out with Kerry then and in with Change.

Or...wait...would that be unfair to him? He doesn't wear ugly pantsuits, so....

[JimGinPA]

1. Let Us Know How That Works Out For You

:rofl:

[NightWatcher]

2. go ahead and get this out of your system

then be sure to do the right thing this November. We'd be glad to have you as a volunteer but I guess we'll have to settle for your vote for the Democratic Nominee.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. So, you approved of his vote for the war?

[Mass]

4. Clinton is not the incumbent president., It was not about kicking her our of HER seat.

He is not running for president and he is a good senator. This said, no surprise coming from you.

[dsc]

100. Oh really

If I look at one of the dozens and dozens of posts saying she should lose her Senate seat I will see you criticising them, right?

[XemaSab]

5. Yeah, he did

And that's why my support of him in 04 was half-assed.

Your point? :shrug:

[NotThisTime]

6. Do you live or vote in Mass? Just curious....

[rox63]

7. Kerry has apologized for his vote

Clinton never has.

[NatBurner]

8. namaste

[TheWraith]

9. Kerry didn't cheerlead the war, didn't vote to sabre-rattle at Iran, didn't endorse McCain.

Kerry didn't do a lot of things Clinton did.

[ray of light]

107. Hillary and Bill DID CHEERLIEAD for the war. AND Hillary voted for Kyle-LIEberman's

Iran bill.

Seems like busymom is busy spreading b.s. when she hasn't faced the actions of her own 'goddess' she's supporting.

[George_Bonanza]

10. If another Obama-like politicians challenges Kerry, then sure

But Kerry's just a senator and he has never put himself above his party. He's a good liberal senator and has improved since 2004. Plus, he's publicly apologized for his vote.

[galledgoblin]

11. you saying you'd approve of two more liberal candidates taking Kerry and Clinton's Senate seats?

awesome, I can get on board with that!

[busymom]

43. I could too.

[livetohike]

12. I feel sorry for you. I hope you get over your bitterness soon.

Kerry APOLOGIZED and I believe it was heartfelt.

[Bake]

50. I'm sure the families of dead GI's take comfort in his apology.

Bake

[Forkboy]

51. Probably not, but I suspect they take even less comfort in someone who supports the war.

And just felt it was run the wrong way.

[livetohike]

63. I can't know how those families feel

I have no first hand experience with this other than the nephew of my b-i-l who committed suicide following his two tours in Iraq. I know how that family feels.

Kerry wasn't my first choice - but he was the Dem nominee and I supported him over Bush.

[Zodiak]

68. Probably more comfort than they take in Hillary's vote

...and refusal to apologize for it. Especially when it came to light that she didn't bother to read the NIE but still thinks she did the right thing.

[busymom]

13. Well, I just want to understand the issues that are imporant here.

[VolcanoJen]

21. You *don't* understand them.

There's a lot to be said for admitting you were WRONG when you voted in favor of the IWR. Hillary hasn't, and won't admit her failure to all of us on that vote, and it's a crucial reason why she never won my support, and so many of us here at DU.

Your post absolutely infuriated me.

[Windy]

22. Her votes on matters of war and peace are why she LOST this election... nt

[Bake]

54. Kerry voted for it for the same reason Hillary did

Because the Pukes would have painted them as unpatriotic, soft lefties. The motivation was exactly the same for both of them. Kerry apologized. Big fucking deal. He wasn't running for anything, either.

And yet you readily forgive Kerry. A bit of a double standard. His apology doesn't change the fact that he voted for it.

Bake

[ProSense]

55. BS! n/t

[Bake]

57. Nice contribution to the dialog, ProSense

About what I'd expect, though.

Bake

[ProSense]

59. Been through this with you before. So let me elaborate:

BS!

[blm]

69. Except Kerry stood AGAINST the DECISION to go to war because weapon inspections were proving

that force was not needed. Both Clintons sided with Bush's decision to go to war. And Bill defended Bush's decisions on Iraq throughout his summer2004 book tour, even as the Dem nominee was the one leveling those attacks on Bush at the time.

You can't tell the difference, eh? Focking traitor Clintons who protect BushInc for the last two decades earn your devotion and those who risked their lives and careers to uncover the corruption of BushInc earn your scorn. You really won't face that reality.

[busymom]

75. Yes, we all know that he voted for the war before he voted against it.

[blm]

77. Wrong. He spoke against war BEFORE it started. He held to his promise to stand against a decision

that was not based on what weapon inspections discovered.

Kerry showed integrity behind his vote to get weapon inspections into Iraq and Clinton didn't, though she pretended often she was compelled by the same reasons as Kerry.

You side with both Clintons as they sided with Bush's decision to use force and you will attack any Democrat who didn't, including Kerry.

[Lilith Velkor]

84. She said the same damn things he did

Your position on this issue is grossly hypocritical.

[blm]

86. She didn't follow thru and stand with Kerry when he stood against the DECISION to invade - she stood

with Bush, and her husband spent his 2004 book tour DEFENDING Bush's decision to invade. YOU are uninformed if you think they held the same position.

They both voted for IWR but once weapon inspectors got in Kerry said war was proving unnecessary. Hillary and Bill stood solidly with Bush to use force.

[Lilith Velkor]

97. Oh yeah, his vote for the war was all nuanced and shit, and hers was teh evil

Fail.

[blm]

101. If she meant it, she would have stood against the DECISION to invade, just as Kerry did.

What DO you call when a senator says he'll protest any decision to invade if weapon inspections prove force is not needed, and then FOLLOWS THROUGH, and another senator says they are supporting resolution for that same reason, but DOESN'T follow through when the evidence points out that force is not needed, instead siding with the decision to go to war?

You really want to defy the facts?

[karynnj]

111. No she didn't - there are many things to link to that

prove that Kerry spoke out - the Georgetown speech being the most easy to find. With HRC, there is nothing that I ever saw posted of her saying that we should NOT go to war from after the vote until the invasion - nothing. Nor did she speak out when Bush invaded - Kerry did.

In fact, in early 2003, in spite of his vote Kerry was routinely referred to as anti- war. Here is a National Review article by a former Bush speechwriter who lashs into Kerry because in his (Frum's view) they have already gone very slowly and he thought that Kerry, France and Germany would never think it the right time to go.
"There was a time when a year was considered a long time in warfare. But although in every other aspect of life things seem to be speeding up, apparently when it comes to fighting, time is slowing down, and what was once considered merely a brisk speed now feels like a dizzying whirl.

Eighteen months after Pearl Harbor, and the United States was already in Sicily; 18 months since 9/11, and every one of the world's terror regimes except Afghanistan is exactly where it was a year and a half ago. Well, not exactly where it was: Libya has been promoted from mere membership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to actual chairmanship of it. Otherwise, no signs of motion.

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6207784#6213383

In addition, it was not just 2003 - there was also 2006, where for political reasons she fought Kerry on having a Democratic plan and vilified him for Kerry/Feingold.

If you put all the Democratic Senators who voted for IWR on a spectrum, Kerry was the only one who spoke against going to war before we went and Leiberman was the other extreme. HRC told Code Pink it was necessary in March 2003. Her actions over time were closer to Leiberman than Kerry until 2007.

[SOS]

93. Thankfully we won't have to hear that line again in 2008.

btw - when was Clinton kicked out of her Senate seat?

[ray of light]

94. busymom, your rightwing talking points out you as either an idiot or a troll.

But I'll give you just a little lesson on the way our government works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

Boy: Whew! You sure gotta climb
a lot of steps to get to this
Capitol Building here in
Washington. But I wonder who
that sad little scrap of paper is?

I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law some day
At least I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.
Bill: Well, I got this far. When I started I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea.
Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called
their local Congressman, and said, "You're right, there oughta be a law."
Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I
became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.

I'm just a bill
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss
and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: Listen to those Congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they
decide
to report on me favorably, otherwise I may die.
Boy: Die?
Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Ooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live!
Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.
Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?
Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
Boy: Oh no!
Bill: Oh yes!

I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: You mean even if the Whole Congress says you
should be a law, the president can still say no?
Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the president vetoes
me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote
on me again, and by that time you're so old...
Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become
a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?
Bill: No!

But how I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Congressman: He signed you, Bill!
Now you're a law!
Bill: Oh yes!!!

[karynnj]

104. Nice repeat an untrue Republican slur

you really are unhappy about HRC today. Why that translates to attacking Kerry is beyond me.

[NotThisTime]

33. Again, do you live or do you vote in Massachusetts?

[VolcanoJen]

14. I guess you missed the part where Kerry wrote, quite eloquently, in 2006...

... that he regrets nothing more in his political life than his Iraq War Resolution vote.

There's nothing - nothing - in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution. It's not enough to talk about the incompetence and immorality of this Administration in the conduct of this war. It is not enough to point out that we were grossly misled.

You should read the whole thing. And honestly, you should apologize to Senator Kerry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/mistakes-and-responsibili_b_31482.html

[Bake]

64. Easy to be eloquent

(a) He wasn't running for office, and (b) he has a safe seat in Mass.

He still voted for it, and yet you all forgive him so easily. HE'S A POLITICIAN, PEOPLE!

Bake

[VolcanoJen]

98. Right. Edwards was running for President and *he* summoned the courage...

... to show honest remorse over his vote.

Obama certainly knew the IWR was heinous from the beginning and ran his entire campaign saying over and over "This war should have never been authorized, should have never been waged."

Hillary stubbornly stood by the IWR vote, and look where it got her. If you really believe this was all about politics, then she played the "game" poorly.

Most of us are quite a bit more nuanced in our war opposition than you are, fortunately.

[karynnj]

112. Kerry was intending to run just as Edwards was and he apolgized before Edwards

Edwards was a co-sponsor and cheerleader in 2002 and 2003. Kerry was actually against the invasion and public about it. So, there was a difference in what they said they were wrong about.

[VolcanoJen]

114. If John Edwards was a "war cheerleader," then I'm Betty f'n Crocker.

Your perception of history is not based in reality. It really, really isn't. Is it the Hillary thing, or something far deeper?

[karynnj]

117. He actually was - read a book about the primaries

Other than Leiberman, he and Gephardt were the two who throughout 2003 said they still thought the invasion was needed. So, I quess you are Betty Crocker.

I was never a HRC supporter, but I am amazed at the willingness of Edwards fans to erase anything they disagree with. He was speaking of the war being necessary even on the October Hardball - in the series where Mathews spoke to all the 2004 hopefuls in turn. He shifted somewhat at the end of 2003 - but even in 2004, he was less against the war than Kerry. Per most accounts, Edwards thought that Kerry was taking too anti-war a position.

Here is the Oct 13, 2003 interview - he thinks it was right to go in if Iraq had the potential of getting nuclear weapons.

"Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern."

and:
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

and:
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

( There are statements where he says that he would have done it differently. But, overall this - even in October 2003 - 6 months into the said he thought the invasion correct. Kerry, on the other hand, in the same set of interviews spoke of calls he had with Koffi Annan the week or so before the invasion. They (Kerry and Annan ) were for pursuing more diplomacy - and Kerry spoke out. (Kerry had cancer surgery in February 2003 - so he missed the DNC event where Dean gave his speech against the war.)

[blm]

110. Voted for resolution and stood against decision to use force when weapon inspections proved

force was not needed.

YOU side with those who voted for the resolution and SIDED With the DECISION to use force and even when Bill DEFENDED Bush's decision to invade Iraq throughout his summer2004 book tour - THAT is who you defend more than the man who risked his life and career more for your right to open government accountable to the people than any lawmaker in modern history.

But you side with the Cover up wing of the party.

[karynnj]

113. He was clearly intending to run

The fact is that he spoke against it and it was Kerry who as much as anyone has worked to move the country towards a plan to get out.

[TornadoTN]

15. Your words tell all - "kick him out of his seat"

Sorry to inform you, but you let the cat out of the bag so to speak.

The Presidency wasn't a given for Hillary. She wasn't entitled to it. Therefore, she couldn't be kicked out of it. Unless she considers it her throne, which I have suspicions that she does.


Your characterizing it that way speaks volumes of the way Hillary and her supporters have approached this race. It was "destiny" without a purpose.

[LowerManhattanite]

16. “ I say we all do unto him that we did unto HRC and kick him out of his seat.”

What seat has Senator Clinton been kicked out of, Einstein?

God, the death-spasms of the hyper-partisan on this board are ugly to see indeed.

[babylonsister]

17. Good-one to go, or less. Your ignorance is not at all surprising.

He apologized ages ago, unlike your gal, who doesn't know the meaning of the word. Hey, she reminds me of the dim one! :think:

[Windy]

18. He did say that he was sorry for his vote, unlike Hillary..he also voted AGAINST Kyl/lieberman!

Kerry also voted for the Cluster Bomb ban unlike Hillary who voted FOR IT!!

I give John Kerry** a lot more credit on matters of war and peace.


** a vietnam veteran who had the courage to speak out!

[JVS]

19. Hillary didn't apologize like he did.

Also, how does Kerry's challenger poll against the Republican candidate. We don't want to lose a seat after all. Otherwise I'm open to the idea.

[karynnj]

76. Not to mention

that it is highly unlikely that his opponent would be a fraction of the force that Kerry has been to move Democrats behind a position that we need to set a deadline and get out and has been one of the top people who moved America in support of that. These actions will make it far easier for Obama to move in this direction - the country is there. Kerry was the one who worked through being vilified by the Clinton wing to get us there.

Not to mention, Kerry spoke out against going to war - unlike the Clintons.

[Doityourself]

20. You're going to be okay...as you pass through the stages of grief, you will arrive..at peace

[Avalux]

23. This post is really confusing.

"I say we all do unto him that we did unto HRC and kick him out of his seat"

Hillary hasn't been kicked out of anything, so what are you talking about??

[EFerrari]

24. Yeah, let's ditch one of the most progressive, hardest working Senators

out of his seat because statesmen like him grow on trees. :dunce:

[ProSense]

25. Some of you are in full-tilt desperation mode. So let me break it down for you:

Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded, including this speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, January 23, 2003:

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

Kerry 2003:

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link

Kerry has never wavered in calling out Bush on his immoral war, and he led the effort to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton's problem has been not only her silence, but also her inability to explain her position with clarity and consistency,.

Also, where was Hillary when Bill was "repeatedly" defending "Bush against the left on Iraq"?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link

In the middle of the 2004 campaign to make Bush a one-term president (select) for his illegal invasion, Bill Clinton was defending him.

Hillary lost. You can find Bill on the campaign trail doing what he does best: lying.

[babylonsister]

36. That was a helluva speech in Georgetown; thanks for the memories! nt

[riverwalker]

26. Hillary tried to do it to Kerry

when she demanded he apologize for the "stuck in Iraq" comment. We all knew Kerry meant Bush and not the troops, but Hillary was front and center demanding an apology for "insulting the troops". She kicked Kerry in the nuts (an honorable man, a fellow Democrat)when he was down, and indicator of her character (or lack of it).

[MadBadger]

27. It's a real shame that the hillbots on DU have decided to take their anger out on Kerry

[EFerrari]

29. blm called it. n/t

[themaguffin]

28. that's 2 threads, maybe the third we can hope

[beachmom]

92. Actually 3, that I know of. nt

[Forkboy]

30. Hows this thread working out for ya?

:rofl:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

31. Damn triangulating pantsuits.

[democrattotheend]

32. And Kerry wasn't my first choice for the nomination in 2004, largely because of that

Doesn't mean I didn't vote for him in the general. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. But it's a perfectly legitimate reason to vote against her in the primary.

[stillcool]

34. Is this number three?

or do you still have one left?

[Hieronymus]

35. Yes, he did, and he lost in 2004.

[LowerManhattanite]

37. Is it just me...or is there a COORDINATED attack on John Kerry on the board...

...today?


What could have ever brought that on? Hmmmmmmmm. :(

[EFerrari]

38. Looks like it to me. What is the MATTER is people. n/t

[thewiseguy]

39. I am alerting them. This is not Larry Johnson's crib.

[ProSense]

44. They're still upset about

this.

[busymom]

40. So let me get this straight...

Kerry is A-OK, even though he voted for the war because he apologized for his vote after-the-fact? HRC, on the other hand, expressed regret, but it wasn't eloquent enough. Kerry continues to be viewed as a strong democrat worth supporting and believing in. HRC now should consider herself a republican?

:shrug:

If you consider this to be a concentrated effort to attack Kerry, you are wrong. Alert away....but the truth of the matter is that I'm pointing out a hypocrisy here. You have attacked HRC viciously for making the same mistake that Kerry did.

[thewiseguy]

41. Kerry is not running for president right now. This has nothing to do with the GDP.

Hillary still has her senate seat so does Kerry.

[busymom]

42. You're missing my point...

It is the hypocrisy of screaming about how people HATE HRC because she voted for the IW and therefore they could never, ever, ever support her...not as a candidate, and not as VP on the ticket. At the same time, it is all "Kerry endorsed Obama...I'm voting for him."

[thewiseguy]

46. I am not voting for Obama because Kerry endorsed him

Your logic is very poor.

[karynnj]

79. Their actions were not the same

Not to mention that HRC did keep her Senate seat in 2006. The fact is that in late 2002 and early 2003, Kerry was labeled anti-war - because he was. Though WJC tried to re-write history he and Hillary with the strongest voices in the Democratic party did not speak out.

Also Kerry led on things like Kerry/Feingold - which HRC spoke of as "cut and run".

I do see at least 3 Kerry threads - all started by angry Clinton people. This is weird because none deal with what Kerry is doing today which is being a strong voice in the debate in the Senate on Boxer/Warner/Lieberman. You may want to turn on CSPAN 2 - he and Boxer have been doing a great job.

[Occam Bandage]

45. I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries, either.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Kerry wasn't too proud to admit he made a mistake in voting for the IWR.

And it was a mistake. A big effin mistake. A mistake of epic proportions that Hillary was willing to repeat with her YES vote on Kyl-Lieberman.

[Teaser]

48. He's got a tremendous singing voice.

.

[dionysus]

49. he, unlike your queen, o bitter one, actually had the character to apologize.

[Recursion]

52. If someone with peace creds challenges Kerry...

...he or she would have a good shot at my vote.

We also didn't knock Clinton out of her seat, we kept her from going to a higher seat until she shows more responsible use of the one she has currently.

[Beacool]

53. He supports Obama, THAT's the main difference.

Ditto for Edwards.

Oh, the hypocrisy........

[busymom]

56. bingo.

[beachmom]

96. Wrong. I was a Kerry supporter. On my own, I decided to back Obama.

It just so happens I like both, but I will concede the point that Obama made a good judgment and Kerry a mistake when it came to the vote on the war (which Obama spoke out against in Oct. '02)

[YvonneCa]

58. Both Kerry and Clinton (Hillary) trusted GWB...

...and that was their mistake. GWB is not trustworthy. I support all my Dems...Obama, Kerry and both Clintons. The problem here is GEORGE...not our folks.

[dsomuah]

60. And that vote derailed his campaign ...

His vote for the war and then switching to being against the war is a lot of the reason why he was labelled as a flip flopper in 2004 ...

[karynnj]

80. He was against going to war in the Georgetown speech in Jan 2003

before the war. He was completely consistent from his anti-war oped in September 2002, through his IWR speech where he detailed the promises made, through the Georgetown speech. These were consistent with the repeated times he spoke of Bush misleading us to war, without exhausting the peace... etc.

Kerry's mistake was not that he was gung ho to go to war - he clearly wanted to avoid it, it was that he gave Bush a conditional authority - where Bush got to determine if the conditions were met. Objectively, the conditions were not met and he did - as he said he would speak out.

[YvonneCa]

81. So, who was at fault here...

...???

Republicans, who knew that GWB had mislead Senators, and ignored that and called Kerry a flip-flopper?

The media, who never took the time to do real journalism and get the story straight, and recycled the flip-flopper junk over and over and over...instead of investigating Kerry's true vote, reporting it and explaining it truthfully to the American public?

John Kerry, who believed the president, GWB (wrongly and mistakenly) who was the victim of media and RNC spin to caricature a position he did not hold?


I, for one, fault the media, the Republicans and Bush.

[JuniperLea]

61. RFK was for the war before he was against the war...

Things change, information changes, liars are revealed. People change their minds based on these things, except for people like GWBush... stay the course is the most dumbass way to deal with war I've ever seen in my life.

[Swamp Rat]

62. Wrong election

[tammywammy]

65. Hillary's not a Senator anymore?

:shrug:

[Inuca]

66. If I may suggest...

SHUT UP!! Unless you think and inform yourself before you say something, which does not seem to be the case.

[karynnj]

67. There are several differences

First off, HRC did not lose her seat to her 2006 challenger which would be the comparable result.

In addition, Kerry did not vote for the "war". He voted for the IWR and when it was clear that Bush was not following the promises he made to exhaust diplomacy and to let the inspectors finish there work, he unlike HRC, spoke out clearly and as prominently as he could to say that war could be avoided. Here is an article from February 2003, that singles out Kerry as the person saying not to go to war.

Publication: National Review
Publication Date: 24-FEB-03
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Frum, David
Full Article:
The 'Rush' to War, and The Day After Never

How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

Well, everything is relative. Compared to the movement of the tectonic plates or the cooling of the earth's core, the United States is indeed hurtling headlong to war. But by the normal standards of political life, the "rush to war" is a rush only in the sense that 5 o'clock on the Santa Monica Freeway is the "rush hour." The truth is that we have been inching toward war for the past ten years-and there are still quite a number of inches left to traverse.

In the summer of 1993, Iraqi agents attempted to murder former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Assassinations of top political leaders are pretty notoriously grounds for war-in fact, Saddam Hussein cited the mysterious deaths of a number of his top officials as his justification for invading Iran in 1980. If the United States had been eager for war with Iraq, the Bush plot was a perfect excuse. Instead, President Clinton fired a couple of dozen cruise missiles into downtown Baghdad.

A little over a year later, Saddam Hussein abruptly massed 80,000 troops on Iraq's border with Kuwait. The U.N. Security Council passed yet another resolution condemning Iraq (Number 949 this time). American and British units rushed into the emirate to deter a second invasion of Kuwait-and then rushed back out again.

In 1995, Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan, delivering proof positive that Saddam had successfully concealed a biological-weapons program from the U.N. inspectors then operating in Iraq-but there was again no rush.

In September 1996, Saddam Hussein invaded the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq. The United States had promised to protect the Kurds. An unnamed high official was quoted in news accounts at the time predicting that a military response was "very likely"; Bill Clinton himself told the White House press corps that "reckless acts have consequences." Now the rush seemed to be on for sure-only it turned out that the consequences Clinton meant were another flurry of cruise- missile strikes.

In 1998, the U.N. inspections regime in Iraq finally and definitively collapsed. The U.N. passed another passel of resolutions; at year's end, Clinton ordered up another flurry of air strikes to coincide with the impeachment vote. When Clinton's trial ended, so did the air strikes. No rush there.

Nor was there any rushing after George W. Bush took over in January 2001. The new president seemed more than content to wait for later- maybe a second term-before taking action against the dictator who had outlasted two hostile U.S. presidents. After 9/11, it's true that some people around President Bush began to question the Clinton policy of leaving Saddam in power more or less indefinitely. And in January 2002, President Bush's "axis of evil" speech warned that more decisive action against Iraq would come soon.

There was a time when a year was considered a long time in warfare. But although in every other aspect of life things seem to be speeding up, apparently when it comes to fighting, time is slowing down, and what was once considered merely a brisk speed now feels like a dizzying whirl.

Eighteen months after Pearl Harbor, and the United States was already in Sicily; 18 months since 9/11, and every one of the world's terror regimes except Afghanistan is exactly where it was a year and a half ago. Well, not exactly where it was: Libya has been promoted from mere membership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to actual chairmanship of it. Otherwise, no signs of motion.

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."





He spent 2003 and 2004 saying that it was not a war of last resort. Do you know what that means? To many Catholics, it means that it was an unjust war. Then there was the fact that in 2004, he spoke of no permanent bases and layed out his plan in Iraq - which ended up being close to what the ISG came up with.

Then in 2006, Kerry was the main person who caused an Iraq plan to be discussed in the Senate. HRC and her allies vilified him when he fought to introduce Kerry/Feingold on the floor of the Senate. 6 months later, most Democrats backed a variation of that plan - including Clinton. Kerry also has been the leader on the diplomatic side of this issue as well - he wrote the first Senate resolution calling for a diplomatic sunnit - passed in a voice vote in 2007. He also pushed changes needed to get Biden enough support for his plan. http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_gives_props_to_senator_k.html

The fact is that Kerry was NEVER a proponent of the invasion and he went out of his way to speak out - even though he was dealing with cancer in the first 2 months of 2003. As he is a leader in proposing ways out, it would be a bit stupid to kick him out.

[hfojvt]

70. and most of DU did not support him in the 2004 primary

DU was dominated by anti-war candidates - Kucinich, Dean, and Clark.

[Breeze54]

73. I did because Kucinich, Dean, and Clark had dropped out. n/t

[MessiahRp]

71. Kerry is as reviled (unfairly I might add) as any Democrat on this board

All one needs to do is pull up any thread from when he endorsed Obama to see the seething hatred many on this board have for the man. It's sad because he was a hero in the Vietnam War, in helping end the Vietnam War, throughout his Congressional Career (see: BCCI Investigations) and he made the bad choice of getting centrist advisors who held him and his campaign back.

Oh and letting that fucking weasel James Carville anywhere near his campaign enough to go with his Benedict Arnold ass back to his wife and leak the Kerry Ohio strategy so Blackwell could speed up certification.

Rp

[politicasista]

74. He really is

It's unfortunate that some (not all) of Obama's supporters can't see that. They figure that it's more fun and productive to take potshots at one of Obama's top surrogates rather than hear out the facts/truth.

[YvonneCa]

82. Thank you, especially for the part about how unfair it is. n/t

[VolcanoJen]

99. Yes.

And it makes me fucking sick to the bone. And quite a bit angry, as well.

[Breeze54]

72. That may happen anyway. n/t

[quakerboy]

78. Which seat did we kick Hillary out of?

If that means we should not let either of them be president, then I am with you 100%.

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. The difference: Hillary has never apologised for her vote, never admitted she was wrong.

I'd have more respect for her if she could do that; she hasn't, and she won't. This is one of the reasons why I voted for Kerry; he was able to admit to a mistake. This is one of the reasons I could have gladly voted for John Edwards; he, too, admitted a mistake. Hillary Clinton refuses to admit making a mistake, though. Sometimes, humility is a good thing.

[Lilith Velkor]

85. This thread is fuckin' funny.

:thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

102. I agree, but I suspect for different reasons.

[Lilith Velkor]

108. More similar than you think.

Care for some popcorn? :popcorn:

[Forkboy]

109. Well, if that's the case....push over.

:)

[SanchoPanza]

87. Hillary Clinton won reelection in 2006 with broad Democratic support

So did every other Democrat in 2006, regardless of whether they voted for the IWR or not. Regardless if they had regrets about that support or not. To say that anyone is "kicking her out of her seat" begs the question:

What seat?

[ecdab]

88. Please try and contain your bitter disappointment - it's unseemly.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Kerry also admits it was a mistake.

Not as good as never voting for the turd in the first place, but better than stubbornly refusing to use the "m" word.

[spanone]

90. i don't think this election is about pantsuits...and kerry is not running for president

[beachmom]

91. Maybe you can tell one of your "colleagues" here who is calling for Kerry to be primaried

out of the Senate by a crackpot babbling about the IWR ....

[sniffa]

95. You know who else voted for the war?

McCain

[ray of light]

103. Busymom. I challenge you to name ONE bill that Hillary wrote to bring the troops home.

Sure...a lack of apology and a vote for the Kyle-Lieberman IRAN Bill will help START another illegal war and she hasn't done dimshit to bring them home.

But your silly attack on Kerry doesn't wipe away the fact that Hillary may look awesome in a pantsuit but her actions have KEPT the troops there LONGER and her hubby campaigned WITH the Bushies in support of the war.

[QC]

105. Does Kerry have thick ankles?

Svelte ankles seem to be an important qualification for public office now.

[leeroysphitz]

106. I agree. Vote them all out. Anyone who voted for IWR.

What do you think of that?

[mike_c]

115. I am COMPLETELY down with that....

I've said since 2002 that every single legislator who voted to go to war with Iraq should be tried as a war criminal, and that includes John Kerry. I know you're being snarky, but I'm not. I don't forgive them for betraying America for cheap politics. Pantsuit or not.

[cali]

116. what a remarkdably stupid post. I did not support Kerry because of

his IWR vote. I never advocated kicking him out of the Senate, and I don't advocate working against Hill.

Your post is stupid and sickening.